WHEN THEORY AND OBSERVATION COLLIDE: CAN NON-IONIZING RADIATION CAUSE CANCER?

November 29, 2016: The Missing Link: Why your government isn’t protecting you from mobile phones and Wi-Fi when research shows this radiation causes cancer.

The American scientific journal, Environmental Pollution, reports in its next issue that government safety guidelines for microwave radiation emitted by mobile phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and other common wireless devices, are fundamentally flawed and fail to protect the public from this possible carcinogen.

This paper presents a highly probable mechanism that involves an increase in free-radicals, which–in turn–explains the increased risk of cancers documented in epidemiological studies that are associated with environmental exposure to RFR and ELF EMFs at levels well below international guidelines.

• There is sufficient scientific evidence of cellular damage caused by non-ionizing radiation (NIR) well below thermal guidelines.• Applying the ionization model to NIR is inappropriate as mechanisms of biological interactions differ.• Free radicals can and do cause cancer and NIR can and does increase free-radicals.

Scientific evidence increasingly shows wireless radiation causes cancer and infertility and other health effects, but due to a flawed assumption in safety guidelines, governments in the United States, Canada, and the UK (and many other countries) are allowing their citizens to be overexposed to microwave radiation from wireless technology.

Why?

Because governments relied on the wrong model when declaring these devices to be safe.

Ionizing radiation such as x-rays and gamma rays are known to cause cancer by detaching the negative ion – the electron – at the heart of human cell structure. Non-ionizing radiation, such as microwaves, do not detach electrons. Therefore when determining whether microwave-emitting devices were safe to be sold to the public, governments formulated their consumer safety guidelines with the understanding that microwave radiation does not directly or immediately discharge electrons. Despite the growing number of scientific studies documenting that microwave radiation causes cancer, governments have refused to update their guidelines.

Microwave radiation was used in the 1940s for military radar, and was widely adopted for civilian residential use in the 1970s to cook food. Microwave ovens (originally called radar ranges) are shielded because microwaves are known to cause heating. At that time, it was assumed that the only danger from microwave exposure was tissue heating, known as the “thermal effect”. This led to thermal guidelines for microwave radiation.

This paper shines a spotlight on the misguided genesis of government regulations that are based on the thermal effect and documents free-radical damage induced by non-ionizing radiation.

As usage of microwave–emitting devices increases and is marketed to younger consumers without caution, we can expect a societal increase of certain types of cancers including gliomas as well as infertility and other health effects associated with free-radical damage. Indeed this is already happening.

AbstractThis paper attempts to resolve the debate about whether non-ionizing radiation (NIR) can cause cancer–a debate that has been ongoing for decades. The rationale, put forward mostly by physicists and accepted by many health agencies, is that, “since NIR does not have enough energy to dislodge electrons, it is unable to cause cancer.” This argument is based on a flawed assumption and uses the model of ionizing radiation (IR) to explain NIR, which is inappropriate. Evidence of free-radical damage has been repeatedly documented among humans, animals, plants and microorganisms for both extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) and for radio frequency (RF) radiation, neither of which is ionizing. While IR directly damages DNA, NIR interferes with the oxidative repair mechanisms resulting in oxidative stress, damage to cellular components including DNA, and damage to cellular processes leading to cancer. Furthermore, free-radical damage explains the increased cancer risks associated with mobile phone use, occupational exposure to NIR (ELF EMF and RFR), and residential exposure to power lines and RF transmitters including mobile phones, cell phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and radar installations.

Mobile phone usage has become an integral part of our lives. However, the effects of the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted by these devices on biological systems and specifically the reproductive systems are currently under active debate. A fundamental hindrance to the current debate is that there is no clear mechanism of how such non-ionising radiation influences biological systems. Therefore, we explored the documented impacts of RF-EMR on the male reproductive system and considered any common observations that could provide insights on a potential mechanism.

Among a total of 27 studies investigating the effects of RF-EMR on the male reproductive system, negative consequences of exposure were reported in 21. Within these 21 studies, 11 of the 15 that investigated sperm motility reported significant declines, 7 of 7 that measured the production of reactive oxygen species documented elevated levels and 4 of 5 studies that probed for DNA damage highlighted increased damage, due to RF-EMR exposure. Associated with this, RF-EMR treatment reduced antioxidant levels in 6 of 6 studies that studied this phenomenon, while consequences of RF-EMR were successfully ameliorated with the supplementation of antioxidants in all 3 studies that carried out these experiments.

In light of this, we envisage a two-step mechanism whereby RF-EMR is able to induce mitochondrial dysfunction leading to elevated ROS production.

A continued focus on research which aims to shed light on the biological effects of RF-EMR will allow us to test and assess this proposed mechanism in a variety of cell types.

The Swedish No Risk Project

During the 1990’s the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) instigated research into reports of electro-magnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in the modern information technology (IT) workplace with a possible link with chemical emissions from new electronic equipment.
The research team at SiF were concerned that the information technology (IT) workplace may be creating new and serious risks to health, as a result SiF initiated the No-Risk project which aimed at addressing all possible health hazards in the modern office-place. In 1999 SiF initiated the “Healthy Office project” in partnership with the Luleå University of Technology (LTU).
The project aimed at implementing the points raised in the SiF “No Risk” publication. However due to corporate and political concerns that this project was a threat to the introduction of new technology it was totally closed down with all publications withdrawn from circulation. For all intents and purposes the SiF No Risk project was as if it never happened.
However these documents are now available on this website in honour of the brave women and men who worked to make the modern IT workplace a safer and healthy place. Their dream must be kept alive. Also included is a pamphlet by the Swedish company Liberel which specialised in designing office places to reduce environmental hazards to workers and this company was directly involved in the SiF No Risk Project. It was Martin Andersson from Liberel who was the first to combine the necessity of reducing electromagnetic fields with the elimination of chemical emissions from office equipment.
See:The death of the No-Risk and Healthy Office projects, JACNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, Sept. 2010
Don Maisch PhDNo Risk in the IT environment (12.3 MiB, 39 hits)Hypersensitive in IT Environments (14.0 MiB, 36 hits)The Healthy Office newsletter (1999) (7.3 MiB, 20 hits)Working environment for people and computers (11.9 MiB, 31 hits)The Invisible Disease: The Dangers of Environmental Illnesses Caused by Electromagnetic Fields and Chemical Emissions. By Gunni Nordstrom (62.8 KiB, 47 hits)" New diagnoses " - an explanatory model for neurological illnesses (58.7 KiB, 40 hits)

Received 19 February 2015, Accepted 25 February 2015, Available online 6 March 2015

Abstract

The vast majority of in vitro and in vivo studies did not find cancerogenic effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), i.e. emitted by mobile phones and base stations. Previously published results from a pilot study with carcinogen-treated mice, however, suggested tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF (Tillmann et al., 2010). We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels (0 (sham), 0.04, 0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR). We could confirm and extend the originally reported findings. Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls. In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure. A clear dose-response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure. Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones."

The antennas fueling the nation's cellphone boom are challenging federal safety rules that were put in place when signals largely radiated from remote towers off-limits to the public.

Now, antennas are in more than 300,000 locations—rooftops, parks, stadiums—nearly double the number of 10 years ago, according to the industry trade group CTIA.

Federal rules require carriers to use barricades, signs and training to protect people from excessive radio-frequency radiation, the waves of electric and magnetic power that carry signals. The power isn't considered harmful by the time it reaches the street, but it can be a risk for workers and residents standing directly in front of an antenna.

One in 10 sites violates the rules, according to six engineers who examined more than 5,000 sites during safety audits for carriers and local municipalities, underscoring a safety lapse in the network that makes cellphones hum, at a time when the health effects of antennas are being debated world-wide.

The FCC has issued just two citations to cell carriers since adopting the rules in 1996. The FCC says it lacks resources to monitor each antenna.

"It's like having a speed limit and no police," said Marvin Wessel, an engineer who has audited more than 3,000 sites and found one in 10 out of compliance.

On a sweltering June day in Phoenix, Mr. Wessel strolled through a residential area near Echo Canyon Park and spotted lawn chairs near a T-Mobile US Inc. cellular antenna painted brown to match a fence. His monitor showed emissions well above safety limits.

After being alerted by The Wall Street Journal, T-Mobile added warning signs and roped off a patch in front of the antenna with a chain. "The safety of the public, our customers and our employees is a responsibility that all of us here at T-Mobile take very seriously," said a T-Mobile spokeswoman.

At very high levels, radio-frequency radiation can cook human tissue, the FCC said, potentially causing cataracts and temporary sterility and other health issues.

To buffer people from these "thermal" effects, the FCC set two limits for how much RF people can absorb—one for the general public, and an "occupational" limit five times higher for people trained to work near antennas. The higher level is still 10 times below the thermal level.

Carriers have to restrict access near antennas that are above the limits. Workers and others who venture into hot zones—generally up to 20 feet in front of an antenna—must be trained and have RF monitors.

Most cellular antennas aren't strong enough to cause thermal problems, engineers say, and carriers are installing some smaller antennas with lower power levels. But some are being made stronger to meet demand for high-speed Internet access, high-definition video and other services. A German study in 2013 found higher emissions from 4G antennas.

"The more bandwidth, the hotter they will be," said Mr. Wessel, who expects some to exceed the thermal level within a year.

Richard Tell, a Nevada engineer, also expects some emissions to rise. At more than 1,000 sites nationally, he found roughly one in 10 out of compliance, similar to Mr. Wessel's conclusion. Some are hidden or disguised for aesthetic reasons.

"I've been on rooftops looking for antennas and couldn't find them because they were hidden in fake concrete blocks that were really foam," he said.

Daniel Ranahan, a Lowell, Mass., roofer, said antennas are slowing jobs. "There's no mechanism for the worker to know what buildings are safe," he said.

Peter Chaney, the director of safety and health for the Mechanical Contractors Association of America, which represents companies with more than 270,000 workers, in August asked the FCC to create a database of cellular antennas.

One company, RF Check, in San Diego, has designed a protocol but requires collaboration from carriers and funding from phone customers.

Mr. Chaney is developing a training video and brochure on RF safety to distribute to the association's members next year.

"We want workers to know that the antennas are there and that there may be a potential hazard," he said. "I'm concerned about the chronic effect of this. If guys have 30-year careers and they're exposed to these things on a regular basis—is there any long-term effect?"

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health began studying that question after the World Health Organization in 2011 categorized RF radiation as a possible carcinogen, based on research by over 30 scientists, said Gregory Lotz, the top RF expert for Niosh. And the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health is exploring lower-level RF exposure.

An FCC guideline written after the rules were adopted notes studies showing "relatively low levels" of RF radiation can cause "certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects," and other health issues, including cancer. "Results to date have been inconclusive," however, the agency said in a guide to radio-frequency radiation, and need to be studied further.

Among those concerned is Gilbert Amelio, a scientist who was chief executive of AppleInc. and National Semiconductor and a board member of AT&T Inc.He believes industry leaders will "take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent harm to workers or others who may have good reason to be close to these sites."

Jimmy Crespo complained to federal labor regulators in 2011 that he became disabled with cognitive issues after working more than 300 times on heating and cooling systems for antennas for Johnson Controls Inc., a Sprint Corp. contractor.

"I had no training, no monitoring devices and no warning from my employer," Mr. Crespo said.

Regulators asked Johnson to ensure the rules were being followed. Johnson said it no longer had the contract, and Sprint said the systems were a safe distance from antennas.

"Employees were not working in an area where radio frequencies would pose a hazard," a Johnson spokesman said.

Sprint said annual checks show all sites are compliant.

AT&T said it places "the utmost importance on the safety of workers and the public from RF emissions and we have a rigorous safety program in place to minimize exposure to RF emissions."

The FCC in April signed a consent decree with Verizon Communications Inc. to settle RF violations in Pennsylvania and Connecticut, involving an unlocked rooftop and a missing sign. Verizon agreed to pay $50,000 and to train employees and contractors, and check other sites.

The carrier has told regulators that property owners complicate compliance.

"In New York City, condominium tenants became upset and concerned with RF notification signs we placed on a terrace access point," Tamara Preiss, Verizon's vice president of federal regulatory affairs, wrote to the FCC in February. Ms. Preiss said the signs were removed after the tenants hired a lawyer.

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and A.M. Best Co., the insurance-rating agency, have flagged RF as an emerging risk. Swiss Re wrote in a 2013 report that if RF radiation is linked to health problems it "could ultimately lead to large losses."

BACKGROUND: The rapid development and increased use of wireless telecommunication technologies led to a substantial change of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in the general population but little is known about temporal trends of RF-EMF in our everyday environment.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study is to evaluate temporal trends of RF-EMF exposure levels in different microenvironments of three European cities using a common measurement protocol.

METHODS: We performed measurements in the cities of Basel (Switzerland), Ghent and Brussels (Belgium) during one year, between April 2011 and March 2012. RF-EMF exposure in 11 different frequency bands ranging from FM (Frequency Modulation, 88MHz) to WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network, 2.5GHz) was quantified with portable measurement devices (exposimeters) in various microenvironments: outdoor areas (residential areas, downtown and suburb), public transports (train, bus and tram or metro rides) and indoor places (airport, railway station and shopping centers). Measurements were collected every 4s during 10-50min per environment and measurement day. Linear temporal trends were analyzed by mixed linear regression models.

RESULTS: Highest total RF-EMF exposure levels occurred in public transports (all public transports combined) with arithmetic mean values of 0.84V/m in Brussels, 0.72V/m in Ghent, and 0.59V/m in Basel. In all outdoor areas combined, mean exposure levels were 0.41V/m in Brussels, 0.31V/m in Ghent and 0.26V/m in Basel. Within one year, total RF-EMF exposure levels in all outdoor areas in combination increased by 57.1% (p<0.001) in Basel by 20.1% in Ghent (p=0.053) and by 38.2% (p=0.012) in Brussels. Exposure increase was most consistently observed in outdoor areas due to emissions from mobile phone base stations. In public transports RF-EMF levels tended also to increase but mostly without statistical significance.

DISCUSSION: An increase of RF-EMF exposure levels has been observed between April 2011 and March 2012 in various microenvironments of three European cities. Nevertheless, exposure levels were still far below regulatory limits of each country. A continuous monitoring is needed to identify high exposure areas and to anticipate critical development of RF-EMF exposure at public places.

Excerpts
Overall, our study gives strong indications that, especially mobile phone base station exposure at outdoor areas increased over the study period between April 2011 and March 2012. At outdoor areas temporal increase was higher in Basel׳s area compared to that in Belgium. This may be due to the difference in increased coverage and capacity demands. A further explanation might be that the introduction of precautionary limits in Belgium, which came in effect in 2009 in Brussels (Ordinance of the Brussels Capital Region of 14 March 2007) and in 2011 in Ghent (Ordinance of the Flemish Region of Nov. 2010) and thus was still in the adaption process during the measurement period, could have slowed down the exposure increase, whereas precautionary limits in Switzerland were established since 2001 (ONIR, 1999).
Interestingly, highest exposure levels occurred consistently in trains across all cities with distinct contribution from mobile phone handsets. This has several reasons: the inner space of a train can be considered as a Faraday cage, reflecting emitted radiation by mobile phones. In addition, the density of people using their mobile phones is usually higher in trains than in other environments. Nowadays, mobile phones are not only used for messaging and calls anymore but rather also for using a large variety of web-based applications (apps), such as news alerts, e-mails, mobile television and many other apps, increasing the use of mobile phone handsets during train rides resulting in higher uplink exposure levels. Moreover, location updates or handovers are executed when moving around in order to maintain constant connectivity to the mobile phone base station of the respective area when the device is in stand-by mode or during a call, respectively (Urbinello and Röösli, 2013). These aspects are also relevant for the exposure situation in buses, trams and metros but in these environments we have mainly measured outside the commuting rush hours (Table 1) with a lower passenger density compared to trains.
The impact of the communication infrastructure on the exposure situation can be exemplarily highlighted by comparing measurements in trams and metros. Total mobile phone handset exposure was considerably higher in metros vs. trams (0.67 V/m vs. 0.21 and 0.41 in trams in Basel and Ghent), whereas mobile phone base station exposure was lower in metros than in trams (0.16 V/m vs. 0.23 and 0.27 V/m). Metros are running underground and in underground stations micro- and pico-cells are installed. Furthermore, the coverage in metros may be poor, so that the mobile devices have to emit with stronger signals.
We have hypothesized that increase of exposure levels would be most pronounced in public transports, because of the strong increase in internet use with mobile phones after the introduction of smart phones. However, this was not the case. Over all public transports combined, temporal trends did not reach statistical significance in all three cities. Lack of significance is partly explained by the higher data variability from handset exposure, which has resulted in larger confidence intervals. The lower increase on the relative scale is probably the consequence of higher exposure levels in public transports. Thus, the increase on the absolute scale is actually higher for many public transports compared to outdoor areas. For instance the observed (significant) 63.7% increase in geometric mean in the central residential area of Basel corresponds to an increase of 0.16 V/m whereas the (non-significant) 39% increase in trains in Brussels corresponds to 1.01 V/m. A further issue which may appear contradictory is the increase of exposure from mobile phone base stations and a decrease of exposure from mobile phone handsets at the airport since there is an interaction between up- and downlink exposure. However, this interaction is complex and it has been demonstrated that the higher are the exposure levels from the base station, the lower is the output power of mobile phones (Yuanyuan et al., 2014 and Aerts et al., 2013). Further, one has to be aware that RF-EMF exposure decreases rapidly with increasing distance and thus, walking through a waiting hall at the airport will not capture uplink exposure from all emitting mobile devices in the considered area.
It is difficult to predict how RF-EMF exposure will further change over time. Assuming a linear trend of increase in RF-EMF exposure, it might be reasonable to argue that exposure will exceed regulatory limits somewhere in the future. However, along with the increase of new telecommunication devices, technologies became also more efficient in reducing emission characteristics of mobile phones. Our results suggest that the increase in number and amount of mobile phone users has not been compensated with more efficient technologies and the net effect is an increase in exposure levels for most microenvironments. Also the output power of mobile phones is affected by the technology. For example second generation mobile phones (2G, GSM) use a power control, radiating with full intensity during connection establishment and down-regulate as soon as a call has been established (Lönn et al., 2004). Smartphones of the third generation (3G, UMTS) in contrast, have a so-called enhanced adaptive power control which optimizes radiation according to the quality of connectivity to the mobile phone base station, resulting in considerable lower average output power (Gati et al., 2009, Persson et al., 2011 and Wiart et al., 2000), which may also affect overall RF-EMF exposure.
Our study offers for the first time a diligent comparison of temporal trends during a year between countries as it based on a common measurement protocol applied in all cities. We could consistently demonstrate that all exposure levels were far below reference levels proposed by ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). Exposure levels were of the same order of magnitude in all cities. Consistently in all cities, exposure was highest in public transports (train) and lowest in residential areas (central and non-central residential areas). We found substantial increase of exposure levels for most microenvironments. It is crucial to further monitor the exposure situation in different environments in order to examine if and how exposure changes over time and to anticipate critical areas.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

CDC now asserts that "Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use." As the lead Federal health action agency, CDC provides tips to the public on how to "reduce radio frequency radiation near your body."

Health authorities at the Federal, state, and local level should follow CDC's lead and disseminate precautionary health warnings to ensure that the public is adequately informed about the potential health risks of cell phone use and has the know-how to reduce exposure to the radiofrequency radiation emitted when carrying or using cell phones.

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission should review CDC's new position in light of the Commission's obsolete regulatory standard for cell phone radiation that was adopted in 1996 when few adults used cell phones.

CDC indicates that more research is needed to understand the health risks of exposure to cell phone radiation. However, unfortunately the U.S. has been negligent in supporting research on wireless radiation health effects. A major government research funding initiative could be launched with as little as a nickel-a-month fee on wireless subscriptions. This research initiative should be conducted independent of the wireless industry as we have considerable evidence that the industry has undermined much of the research it has funded in the past.

Radio frequency wave (RFW) generated by base transceiver station has been reported to produce deleterious effects on the central nervous system function, possibly through oxidative stress. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of RFW-induced oxidative stress in the cerebellum and encephalon and the prophylactic effect of vitamin C on theses tissues by measuring the antioxidant enzymes activity, including: glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, catalase, and malondialdehyde (MDA). Thirty-two adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four equal groups. The control group; the control-vitamin C group received L-ascorbic acid (200 mg/kg of body weight/day by gavage) for 45 days. The RFW group was exposed to RFW and the RFW+ vitamin C group was exposed to RFW and received vitamin C. At the end of the experiment, all groups were killed and encephalon and cerebellum of all rats were removed and stored at -70 degrees C for measurement of antioxidant enzymes activity and MDA. The results indicate that exposure to RFW in the test group decreased antioxidant enzymes activity and increased MDA compared with the control groups (p<0.05). The protective role of vitamin C in the treated group improved antioxidant enzymes activity and reduced MDA compared with the test group (p<0.05). It can be concluded that RFW causes oxidative stress in the brain and vitamin C improves the antioxidant enzymes activity and decreases MDA.